A church is far more than this.  In so far as it is truly alive, it is a real organism, as distinguished from a crowd or collection of persons with a common purpose.  It exhibits on the religious plane the ruling characters of such organized life:  that is to say, the development of tradition and complex habits, the differentiation of function, the docility to leadership, the conservation of values, or carrying forward of the past into the present.  It is, like the State, embodied history; and as such lives with its own life, a life transcending and embracing that of the individual souls of which it is built.  And here, in its combined social and historic character, lie the sources alike of its enormous importance for human life and of its inevitable defects.

Professor McDougall, in his discussion of national groups,[121] has laid down the conditions which are necessary to the development of such a true organic group life as is seen in a living church.  These are:  first, continuity of existence, involving the development of a body of traditions, customs and practices—­that is, for religion, a Cultus.  Next, an authoritative organization through which custom and belief can be transmitted—­that is, a Hierarchy, order of ministers, or its equivalent.  Third, a conscious common interest, belief, or idea—­Creed.  Last, the existence of antagonistic groups or conditions, developing loyalty or keenness.  These characters—­continuity, authority, common belief and loyalty—­which are shown, as he says, in their completeness in a patriot army, are I think no less marked features of a living spiritual society.  Plain examples are the primitive Christian communities, the great religious orders in their flourishing time, the Society of Friends.  They are on the whole more fully evident in the Catholic than in the Protestant type of church.  But I think that we may look upon them, in some form or another, as essential to any institutional framework which shall really help the spiritual life in man.

We find ourselves, then, committed to the picture of a church or spiritual institution which is in essence Liturgic, Ecclesiastical, Dogmatic, and Militant, as best fulfilling the requirements of group psychology.  Four decidedly indigestible morsels for the modern mind.  Yet, group-feeling demands common expression if it is to be lifted from notion to fact.  Discipline requires some authority, and some devotion to it.  Culture involves a tradition handed on.  And these, we said, were the chief gifts which the institution had to give to its members.  We may therefore keep them in mind, as representing actual values, and warning us that neither history nor psychology encourages the belief that an amiable fluidity serves the highest purposes of life.  Some common practice and custom, keeping the individual in line with the main tendencies of the group, providing rails on which the instinctive life can run and machinery by which fruitful suggestions